Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1741	control, N = 871	treatment, N = 871	p-value2
age	172	50.73 ± 12.67 (25 - 75)	50.82 ± 12.91 (25 - 75)	50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73)	0.931
Unknown		2	2	0
gender	174				0.708
f		138 (79%)	68 (78%)	70 (80%)
m		36 (21%)	19 (22%)	17 (20%)
occupation	174				0.914
day_training		4 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)
full_time		22 (13%)	12 (14%)	10 (11%)
homemaker		18 (10%)	8 (9.2%)	10 (11%)
other		2 (1.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.3%)
part_time		32 (18%)	16 (18%)	16 (18%)
retired		43 (25%)	21 (24%)	22 (25%)
self_employ		7 (4.0%)	4 (4.6%)	3 (3.4%)
student		2 (1.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.3%)
t_and_e		2 (1.1%)	1 (1.1%)	1 (1.1%)
unemploy		42 (24%)	23 (26%)	19 (22%)
marital	174				0.972
cohabitation		1 (0.6%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.1%)
divore		19 (11%)	11 (13%)	8 (9.2%)
in_relationship		4 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)
married		53 (30%)	25 (29%)	28 (32%)
none		84 (48%)	42 (48%)	42 (48%)
seperation		3 (1.7%)	2 (2.3%)	1 (1.1%)
widow		10 (5.7%)	5 (5.7%)	5 (5.7%)
edu	174				0.393
bachelor		40 (23%)	16 (18%)	24 (28%)
diploma		32 (18%)	21 (24%)	11 (13%)
hd_ad		5 (2.9%)	4 (4.6%)	1 (1.1%)
postgraduate		15 (8.6%)	8 (9.2%)	7 (8.0%)
primary		12 (6.9%)	5 (5.7%)	7 (8.0%)
secondary_1_3		19 (11%)	10 (11%)	9 (10%)
secondary_4_5		42 (24%)	19 (22%)	23 (26%)
secondary_6_7		9 (5.2%)	4 (4.6%)	5 (5.7%)
fam_income	174				0.713
10001_12000		6 (3.4%)	2 (2.3%)	4 (4.6%)
12001_14000		10 (5.7%)	4 (4.6%)	6 (6.9%)
14001_16000		8 (4.6%)	3 (3.4%)	5 (5.7%)
16001_18000		4 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)	2 (2.3%)
18001_20000		8 (4.6%)	6 (6.9%)	2 (2.3%)
20001_above		33 (19%)	20 (23%)	13 (15%)
2001_4000		24 (14%)	13 (15%)	11 (13%)
4001_6000		19 (11%)	7 (8.0%)	12 (14%)
6001_8000		16 (9.2%)	9 (10%)	7 (8.0%)
8001_10000		14 (8.0%)	7 (8.0%)	7 (8.0%)
below_2000		32 (18%)	14 (16%)	18 (21%)
medication	174	155 (89%)	77 (89%)	78 (90%)	0.808
onset_duration	171	15.51 ± 10.39 (0 - 56)	16.00 ± 11.34 (0 - 56)	15.00 ± 9.35 (0 - 35)	0.533
Unknown		3	0	3
onset_age	169	35.40 ± 13.60 (10 - 65)	34.68 ± 12.42 (10 - 61)	36.12 ± 14.73 (14 - 65)	0.492
Unknown		5	2	3
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1741	control, N = 871	treatment, N = 871	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	174	3.10 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)	3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)	0.704
recovery_stage_b	174	17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24)	17.91 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)	17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24)	0.669
ras_confidence	174	29.74 ± 5.26 (14 - 45)	29.33 ± 5.14 (14 - 40)	30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45)	0.315
ras_willingness	174	11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)	11.74 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)	11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)	0.709
ras_goal	174	17.42 ± 3.12 (7 - 25)	17.17 ± 3.01 (7 - 24)	17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25)	0.297
ras_reliance	174	13.31 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)	13.08 ± 2.80 (5 - 18)	13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20)	0.295
ras_domination	174	9.76 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)	9.94 ± 2.49 (3 - 15)	9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15)	0.334
symptom	174	30.04 ± 9.17 (14 - 56)	30.28 ± 9.58 (14 - 55)	29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56)	0.736
slof_work	174	22.32 ± 4.76 (10 - 30)	22.52 ± 4.37 (12 - 30)	22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30)	0.579
slof_relationship	174	25.30 ± 5.90 (9 - 35)	24.97 ± 5.88 (9 - 35)	25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35)	0.450
satisfaction	174	20.33 ± 7.12 (5 - 35)	19.48 ± 6.96 (5 - 33)	21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)	0.115
mhc_emotional	174	10.74 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)	10.47 ± 3.68 (3 - 17)	11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)	0.345
mhc_social	174	14.98 ± 5.55 (5 - 30)	14.80 ± 5.54 (5 - 30)	15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29)	0.673
mhc_psychological	174	21.61 ± 6.46 (6 - 36)	21.34 ± 6.31 (7 - 36)	21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36)	0.582
resilisnce	174	16.32 ± 4.69 (6 - 30)	15.72 ± 4.25 (6 - 24)	16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30)	0.096
social_provision	174	13.52 ± 2.85 (5 - 20)	13.14 ± 2.67 (5 - 20)	13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)	0.080
els_value_living	174	16.93 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)	16.64 ± 3.03 (6 - 22)	17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	0.243
els_life_fulfill	174	12.68 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)	12.20 ± 3.32 (5 - 19)	13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20)	0.059
els	174	29.60 ± 6.00 (9 - 45)	28.84 ± 5.75 (11 - 39)	30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45)	0.093
social_connect	174	26.63 ± 9.27 (8 - 48)	27.16 ± 8.93 (8 - 48)	26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48)	0.454
shs_agency	174	14.26 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)	13.72 ± 4.76 (3 - 21)	14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24)	0.164
shs_pathway	174	15.93 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)	15.37 ± 4.17 (3 - 24)	16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24)	0.078
shs	174	30.19 ± 8.90 (6 - 48)	29.09 ± 8.57 (6 - 45)	31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48)	0.104
esteem	174	12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20)	12.62 ± 1.61 (9 - 18)	12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20)	>0.999
mlq_search	174	14.87 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)	14.52 ± 3.59 (4 - 21)	15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)	0.190
mlq_presence	174	13.33 ± 4.42 (3 - 21)	13.18 ± 4.15 (3 - 21)	13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)	0.669
mlq	174	28.20 ± 7.12 (6 - 42)	27.70 ± 6.80 (7 - 40)	28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42)	0.356
empower	174	19.12 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)	18.69 ± 4.15 (9 - 30)	19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30)	0.189
ismi_resistance	174	14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)	14.39 ± 2.34 (6 - 20)	14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)	0.977
ismi_discrimation	174	11.66 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)	11.84 ± 2.88 (5 - 20)	11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)	0.442
sss_affective	174	10.22 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	10.15 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)	10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)	0.787
sss_behavior	174	9.90 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	9.98 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	0.778
sss_cognitive	174	8.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)	8.34 ± 3.60 (3 - 18)	8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	0.775
sss	174	28.55 ± 10.30 (9 - 54)	28.47 ± 10.12 (9 - 54)	28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54)	0.924
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.14	0.127	2.89, 3.39
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.069	0.179	-0.421, 0.283	0.701
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.149	0.185	-0.213, 0.511	0.421
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.308	0.265	-0.212, 0.828	0.248
	Pseudo R square	0.018
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.309	17.3, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.184	0.437	-1.04, 0.673	0.675
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.197	0.400	-0.981, 0.586	0.622
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.750	0.574	-0.376, 1.88	0.195
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.3	0.565	28.2, 30.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.805	0.799	-0.762, 2.37	0.315
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.05	0.571	-0.067, 2.17	0.069
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.737	0.822	-0.874, 2.35	0.373
	Pseudo R square	0.026
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.7	0.216	11.3, 12.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.115	0.306	-0.485, 0.715	0.708
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.021	0.248	-0.506, 0.465	0.933
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.332	0.356	-0.366, 1.03	0.353
	Pseudo R square	0.006
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.338	16.5, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.494	0.479	-0.444, 1.43	0.303
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.218	0.390	-0.546, 0.982	0.577
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.533	0.561	-0.566, 1.63	0.344
	Pseudo R square	0.017
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.311	12.5, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.460	0.439	-0.401, 1.32	0.297
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.377	0.341	-0.291, 1.04	0.271
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.352	0.490	-0.608, 1.31	0.474
	Pseudo R square	0.018
ras_domination	(Intercept)	9.94	0.255	9.44, 10.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.356	0.360	-1.06, 0.350	0.324
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.028	0.327	-0.613, 0.669	0.932
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.14	0.470	0.217, 2.06	0.017
	Pseudo R square	0.025
symptom	(Intercept)	30.3	0.977	28.4, 32.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.471	1.381	-3.18, 2.24	0.733
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.53	0.850	-3.20, 0.136	0.075
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.085	1.223	-2.48, 2.31	0.945
	Pseudo R square	0.007
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.5	0.507	21.5, 23.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.402	0.716	-1.81, 1.00	0.575
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.042	0.529	-1.08, 0.994	0.937
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.159	0.760	-1.33, 1.65	0.835
	Pseudo R square	0.001
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.0	0.627	23.7, 26.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.678	0.887	-1.06, 2.42	0.445
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.097	0.701	-1.47, 1.28	0.890
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.376	1.008	-1.60, 2.35	0.710
	Pseudo R square	0.005
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.5	0.761	18.0, 21.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.70	1.076	-0.408, 3.81	0.116
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.728	0.732	-0.708, 2.16	0.323
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.832	1.054	-1.23, 2.90	0.432
	Pseudo R square	0.025
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.5	0.402	9.68, 11.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.540	0.569	-0.575, 1.66	0.344
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.510	0.380	-0.234, 1.25	0.182
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.468	0.546	-1.54, 0.603	0.394
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mhc_social	(Intercept)	14.8	0.620	13.6, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.356	0.877	-1.36, 2.08	0.685
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.981	0.683	-0.357, 2.32	0.154
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.419	0.982	-2.34, 1.51	0.671
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.3	0.712	19.9, 22.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.540	1.007	-1.43, 2.51	0.592
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.11	0.752	-0.363, 2.59	0.143
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.451	1.082	-2.57, 1.67	0.678
	Pseudo R square	0.005
resilisnce	(Intercept)	15.7	0.486	14.8, 16.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.18	0.688	-0.164, 2.53	0.087
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.871	0.589	-0.283, 2.03	0.142
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.468	0.847	-1.19, 2.13	0.581
	Pseudo R square	0.033
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.1	0.307	12.5, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.759	0.434	-0.093, 1.61	0.082
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.350	0.355	-1.05, 0.345	0.326
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.515	0.510	-0.485, 1.51	0.315
	Pseudo R square	0.027
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.6	0.342	16.0, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.563	0.483	-0.384, 1.51	0.245
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.230	0.361	-0.477, 0.938	0.525
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.381	0.519	-0.637, 1.40	0.465
	Pseudo R square	0.016
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.2	0.351	11.5, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.966	0.496	-0.007, 1.94	0.053
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.387	0.342	-0.283, 1.06	0.260
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.091	0.492	-0.872, 1.06	0.853
	Pseudo R square	0.026
els	(Intercept)	28.8	0.638	27.6, 30.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.53	0.902	-0.239, 3.30	0.092
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.635	0.588	-0.518, 1.79	0.283
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.376	0.847	-1.28, 2.03	0.658
	Pseudo R square	0.023
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.2	0.999	25.2, 29.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.06	1.413	-3.83, 1.71	0.455
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.052	0.973	-1.96, 1.85	0.958
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.07	1.399	-4.82, 0.668	0.142
	Pseudo R square	0.014
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.7	0.542	12.7, 14.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.08	0.767	-0.422, 2.58	0.160
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.386	0.516	-0.625, 1.40	0.456
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.444	0.742	-1.01, 1.90	0.551
	Pseudo R square	0.018
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.4	0.437	14.5, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.11	0.618	-0.097, 2.33	0.073
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.604	0.433	-0.245, 1.45	0.167
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.411	0.623	-1.63, 0.810	0.511
	Pseudo R square	0.017
shs	(Intercept)	29.1	0.935	27.3, 30.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.20	1.322	-0.397, 4.79	0.099
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.979	0.882	-0.748, 2.71	0.270
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.021	1.268	-2.46, 2.51	0.987
	Pseudo R square	0.018
esteem	(Intercept)	12.6	0.165	12.3, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	0.233	-0.457, 0.457	1.00
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.125	0.235	-0.586, 0.336	0.596
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.289	0.338	-0.373, 0.951	0.393
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.5	0.376	13.8, 15.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.713	0.531	-0.328, 1.75	0.181
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.785	0.456	-0.109, 1.68	0.088
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.810	0.656	-2.10, 0.476	0.220
	Pseudo R square	0.010
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.464	12.3, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.287	0.657	-1.00, 1.57	0.662
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.737	0.515	-0.272, 1.75	0.156
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.006	0.741	-1.45, 1.46	0.993
	Pseudo R square	0.007
mlq	(Intercept)	27.7	0.754	26.2, 29.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.00	1.066	-1.09, 3.09	0.349
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.52	0.858	-0.163, 3.20	0.080
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.776	1.234	-3.19, 1.64	0.531
	Pseudo R square	0.009
empower	(Intercept)	18.7	0.460	17.8, 19.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.862	0.651	-0.414, 2.14	0.187
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.06	0.482	0.114, 2.00	0.031
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.27	0.694	-2.63, 0.090	0.070
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.269	13.9, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.011	0.380	-0.734, 0.757	0.976
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.110	0.345	-0.566, 0.786	0.751
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.584	0.496	-0.387, 1.56	0.241
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.331	11.2, 12.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.356	0.469	-1.27, 0.562	0.448
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.064	0.446	-0.937, 0.810	0.887
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.828	0.640	-2.08, 0.426	0.198
	Pseudo R square	0.019
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.1	0.390	9.38, 10.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.149	0.552	-0.932, 1.23	0.787
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.035	0.386	-0.722, 0.793	0.927
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.22	0.556	-2.31, -0.133	0.030
	Pseudo R square	0.012
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	9.98	0.399	9.20, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.161	0.564	-1.27, 0.944	0.776
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.201	0.398	-0.981, 0.580	0.616
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.540	0.573	-1.66, 0.583	0.348
	Pseudo R square	0.006
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.34	0.391	7.58, 9.11
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.161	0.553	-0.922, 1.24	0.771
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.039	0.420	-0.863, 0.784	0.926
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.790	0.604	-1.97, 0.395	0.194
	Pseudo R square	0.006
sss	(Intercept)	28.5	1.100	26.3, 30.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.149	1.556	-2.90, 3.20	0.924
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.265	1.002	-2.23, 1.70	0.792
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.33	1.442	-5.16, 0.494	0.109
	Pseudo R square	0.008
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(251) = 24.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(251) = -0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.51], t(251) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.83], t(251) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.52e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.91 (95% CI [17.30, 18.51], t(251) = 57.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.67], t(251) = -0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.59], t(251) = -0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.88], t(251) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [28.23, 30.44], t(251) = 51.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.37], t(251) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.17], t(251) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.35], t(251) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.44])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.74 (95% CI [11.31, 12.16], t(251) = 54.22, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.71], t(251) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.46], t(251) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.03], t(251) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.17 (95% CI [16.51, 17.84], t(251) = 50.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.43], t(251) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.98], t(251) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.63], t(251) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.69], t(251) = 42.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.32], t(251) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.04], t(251) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.31], t(251) = 0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.45])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.94 (95% CI [9.44, 10.44], t(251) = 39.02, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.35], t(251) = -0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.15])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.67], t(251) = 0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [0.22, 2.06], t(251) = 2.42, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.09, 0.87])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.36, 32.19], t(251) = 30.99, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.24], t(251) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.24])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.20, 0.14], t(251) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.01])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.48, 2.31], t(251) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -9.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.25])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.52 (95% CI [21.52, 23.51], t(251) = 44.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.00], t(251) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.99], t(251) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -8.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.65], t(251) = 0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.97 (95% CI [23.74, 26.19], t(251) = 39.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.42], t(251) = 0.76, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.28], t(251) = -0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.60, 2.35], t(251) = 0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.48 (95% CI [17.99, 20.97], t(251) = 25.61, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.81], t(251) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.53])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.16], t(251) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.90], t(251) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.47 (95% CI [9.68, 11.26], t(251) = 26.02, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.66], t(251) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.25], t(251) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.60], t(251) = -0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.16])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.59, 16.02], t(251) = 23.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.08], t(251) = 0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.32], t(251) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.34, 1.51], t(251) = -0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.34 (95% CI [19.95, 22.74], t(251) = 29.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.51], t(251) = 0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.59], t(251) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.57, 1.67], t(251) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.25])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.72 (95% CI [14.77, 16.68], t(251) = 32.33, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.53], t(251) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.03], t(251) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.13], t(251) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.46])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.54, 13.74], t(251) = 42.76, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.61], t(251) = 1.75, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.35], t(251) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.12])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.51], t(251) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.52])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.64 (95% CI [15.97, 17.31], t(251) = 48.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.51], t(251) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.94], t(251) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.40], t(251) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.20 (95% CI [11.51, 12.88], t(251) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-7.29e-03, 1.94], t(251) = 1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-2.21e-03, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.06], t(251) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.06], t(251) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.32])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.84 (95% CI [27.59, 30.09], t(251) = 45.21, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.24, 3.30], t(251) = 1.69, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.79], t(251) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.03], t(251) = 0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.34])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.16 (95% CI [25.20, 29.12], t(251) = 27.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-3.83, 1.71], t(251) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.85], t(251) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -5.51e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.07, 95% CI [-4.82, 0.67], t(251) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.07])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.72 (95% CI [12.66, 14.79], t(251) = 25.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.58], t(251) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.40], t(251) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.90], t(251) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.38])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [14.51, 16.22], t(251) = 35.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.33], t(251) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.45], t(251) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.63, 0.81], t(251) = -0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.20])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.09 (95% CI [27.26, 30.92], t(251) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.20, 95% CI [-0.40, 4.79], t(251) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.71], t(251) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-2.46, 2.51], t(251) = 0.02, p = 0.987; Std. beta = 2.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.29])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.30, 12.94], t(251) = 76.47, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.65e-14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46], t(251) = 4.13e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 5.00e-17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.34], t(251) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.95], t(251) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.62])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.52 (95% CI [13.78, 15.25], t(251) = 38.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.75], t(251) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.68], t(251) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.10, 0.48], t(251) = -1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.14])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.18 (95% CI [12.27, 14.09], t(251) = 28.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.57], t(251) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.75], t(251) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.19e-03, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.46], t(251) = 8.36e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 1.44e-03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.34])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.22, 29.18], t(251) = 36.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.09, 3.09], t(251) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.16, 3.20], t(251) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-3.19, 1.64], t(251) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.23])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.69 (95% CI [17.79, 19.59], t(251) = 40.60, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.14], t(251) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.11, 2.00], t(251) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.47])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.63, 0.09], t(251) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.02])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.39 (95% CI [13.86, 14.92], t(251) = 53.51, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.76], t(251) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 4.56e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.79], t(251) = 0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.56], t(251) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.62])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.19, 12.49], t(251) = 35.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.56], t(251) = -0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.18])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.81], t(251) = -0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.43], t(251) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.14])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.15 (95% CI [9.38, 10.91], t(251) = 26.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.23], t(251) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.79], t(251) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 9.63e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.31, -0.13], t(251) = -2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.04])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.98 (95% CI [9.20, 10.76], t(251) = 25.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.94], t(251) = -0.29, p = 0.775; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.58], t(251) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.16])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.58], t(251) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.16])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.34 (95% CI [7.58, 9.11], t(251) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.24], t(251) = 0.29, p = 0.771; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.78], t(251) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.39], t(251) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.11])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.47 (95% CI [26.32, 30.63], t(251) = 25.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.90, 3.20], t(251) = 0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-2.23, 1.70], t(251) = -0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.16])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.33, 95% CI [-5.16, 0.49], t(251) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.05])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	811.384	822.031	-402.692	805.384
recovery_stage_a	random	6	811.057	832.351	-399.528	799.057	6.327	3	0.097
recovery_stage_b	null	3	1,250.381	1,261.028	-622.191	1,244.381
recovery_stage_b	random	6	1,254.316	1,275.611	-621.158	1,242.316	2.065	3	0.559
ras_confidence	null	3	1,536.588	1,547.236	-765.294	1,530.588
ras_confidence	random	6	1,528.781	1,550.076	-758.391	1,516.781	13.807	3	0.003
ras_willingness	null	3	1,049.793	1,060.440	-521.896	1,043.793
ras_willingness	random	6	1,053.828	1,075.122	-520.914	1,041.828	1.965	3	0.580
ras_goal	null	3	1,284.265	1,294.912	-639.132	1,278.265
ras_goal	random	6	1,284.569	1,305.863	-636.284	1,272.569	5.696	3	0.127
ras_reliance	null	3	1,234.500	1,245.148	-614.250	1,228.500
ras_reliance	random	6	1,233.369	1,254.663	-610.684	1,221.369	7.132	3	0.068
ras_domination	null	3	1,159.396	1,170.043	-576.698	1,153.396
ras_domination	random	6	1,153.771	1,175.066	-570.886	1,141.771	11.624	3	0.009
symptom	null	3	1,787.597	1,798.244	-890.798	1,781.597
symptom	random	6	1,787.009	1,808.303	-887.504	1,775.009	6.588	3	0.086
slof_work	null	3	1,471.721	1,482.368	-732.861	1,465.721
slof_work	random	6	1,477.390	1,498.684	-732.695	1,465.390	0.331	3	0.954
slof_relationship	null	3	1,592.229	1,602.876	-793.114	1,586.229
slof_relationship	random	6	1,597.215	1,618.509	-792.607	1,585.215	1.014	3	0.798
satisfaction	null	3	1,676.736	1,687.383	-835.368	1,670.736
satisfaction	random	6	1,674.215	1,695.510	-831.108	1,662.215	8.521	3	0.036
mhc_emotional	null	3	1,340.153	1,350.801	-667.077	1,334.153
mhc_emotional	random	6	1,343.738	1,365.033	-665.869	1,331.738	2.415	3	0.491
mhc_social	null	3	1,586.258	1,596.905	-790.129	1,580.258
mhc_social	random	6	1,589.461	1,610.756	-788.731	1,577.461	2.797	3	0.424
mhc_psychological	null	3	1,651.433	1,662.080	-822.716	1,645.433
mhc_psychological	random	6	1,654.331	1,675.625	-821.165	1,642.331	3.102	3	0.376
resilisnce	null	3	1,482.989	1,493.637	-738.495	1,476.989
resilisnce	random	6	1,478.083	1,499.378	-733.042	1,466.083	10.906	3	0.012
social_provision	null	3	1,235.083	1,245.730	-614.541	1,229.083
social_provision	random	6	1,235.228	1,256.522	-611.614	1,223.228	5.855	3	0.119
els_value_living	null	3	1,276.025	1,286.672	-635.012	1,270.025
els_value_living	random	6	1,276.938	1,298.233	-632.469	1,264.938	5.086	3	0.166
els_life_fulfill	null	3	1,279.554	1,290.201	-636.777	1,273.554
els_life_fulfill	random	6	1,278.262	1,299.556	-633.131	1,266.262	7.292	3	0.063
els	null	3	1,578.315	1,588.962	-786.157	1,572.315
els	random	6	1,577.014	1,598.309	-782.507	1,565.014	7.300	3	0.063
social_connect	null	3	1,815.655	1,826.302	-904.827	1,809.655
social_connect	random	6	1,815.842	1,837.136	-901.921	1,803.842	5.813	3	0.121
shs_agency	null	3	1,497.628	1,508.275	-745.814	1,491.628
shs_agency	random	6	1,498.084	1,519.379	-743.042	1,486.084	5.543	3	0.136
shs_pathway	null	3	1,392.841	1,403.488	-693.420	1,386.841
shs_pathway	random	6	1,393.875	1,415.169	-690.937	1,381.875	4.966	3	0.174
shs	null	3	1,776.373	1,787.020	-885.187	1,770.373
shs	random	6	1,777.014	1,798.309	-882.507	1,765.014	5.359	3	0.147
esteem	null	3	938.627	949.274	-466.313	932.627
esteem	random	6	943.742	965.036	-465.871	931.742	0.885	3	0.829
mlq_search	null	3	1,343.576	1,354.223	-668.788	1,337.576
mlq_search	random	6	1,345.631	1,366.925	-666.815	1,333.631	3.945	3	0.267
mlq_presence	null	3	1,439.769	1,450.416	-716.885	1,433.769
mlq_presence	random	6	1,441.563	1,462.858	-714.782	1,429.563	4.206	3	0.240
mlq	null	3	1,692.853	1,703.501	-843.427	1,686.853
mlq	random	6	1,694.422	1,715.716	-841.211	1,682.422	4.432	3	0.218
empower	null	3	1,428.478	1,439.125	-711.239	1,422.478
empower	random	6	1,428.779	1,450.073	-708.389	1,416.779	5.699	3	0.127
ismi_resistance	null	3	1,179.511	1,190.158	-586.755	1,173.511
ismi_resistance	random	6	1,181.397	1,202.691	-584.698	1,169.397	4.114	3	0.249
ismi_discrimation	null	3	1,294.335	1,304.982	-644.167	1,288.335
ismi_discrimation	random	6	1,294.857	1,316.152	-641.429	1,282.857	5.478	3	0.140
sss_affective	null	3	1,338.302	1,348.950	-666.151	1,332.302
sss_affective	random	6	1,335.430	1,356.724	-661.715	1,323.430	8.873	3	0.031
sss_behavior	null	3	1,345.392	1,356.039	-669.696	1,339.392
sss_behavior	random	6	1,347.585	1,368.879	-667.792	1,335.585	3.807	3	0.283
sss_cognitive	null	3	1,346.171	1,356.818	-670.086	1,340.171
sss_cognitive	random	6	1,348.488	1,369.783	-668.244	1,336.488	3.683	3	0.298
sss	null	3	1,855.652	1,866.299	-924.826	1,849.652
sss	random	6	1,855.215	1,876.510	-921.608	1,843.215	6.436	3	0.092

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	87	3.14 ± 1.18		87	3.07 ± 1.18		0.701	0.074
recovery_stage_a	2nd	43	3.29 ± 1.15	-0.160	40	3.53 ± 1.14	-0.490	0.343	-0.256
recovery_stage_b	1st	87	17.91 ± 2.89		87	17.72 ± 2.89		0.675	0.093
recovery_stage_b	2nd	43	17.71 ± 2.68	0.100	40	18.28 ± 2.67	-0.280	0.336	-0.287
ras_confidence	1st	87	29.33 ± 5.27		87	30.14 ± 5.27		0.315	-0.293
ras_confidence	2nd	43	30.39 ± 4.51	-0.383	40	31.93 ± 4.46	-0.652	0.119	-0.561
ras_willingness	1st	87	11.74 ± 2.02		87	11.85 ± 2.02		0.708	-0.095
ras_willingness	2nd	43	11.71 ± 1.80	0.017	40	12.16 ± 1.78	-0.259	0.257	-0.371
ras_goal	1st	87	17.17 ± 3.16		87	17.67 ± 3.16		0.303	-0.261
ras_goal	2nd	43	17.39 ± 2.82	-0.115	40	18.42 ± 2.79	-0.396	0.097	-0.542
ras_reliance	1st	87	13.08 ± 2.90		87	13.54 ± 2.90		0.297	-0.279
ras_reliance	2nd	43	13.46 ± 2.55	-0.229	40	14.27 ± 2.52	-0.442	0.146	-0.492
ras_domination	1st	87	9.94 ± 2.38		87	9.59 ± 2.38		0.324	0.221
ras_domination	2nd	43	9.97 ± 2.20	-0.017	40	10.75 ± 2.19	-0.723	0.106	-0.484
symptom	1st	87	30.28 ± 9.11		87	29.80 ± 9.11		0.733	0.117
symptom	2nd	43	28.75 ± 7.49	0.379	40	28.19 ± 7.36	0.400	0.733	0.138
slof_work	1st	87	22.52 ± 4.73		87	22.11 ± 4.73		0.575	0.158
slof_work	2nd	43	22.48 ± 4.09	0.017	40	22.23 ± 4.04	-0.046	0.785	0.096
slof_relationship	1st	87	24.97 ± 5.85		87	25.64 ± 5.85		0.445	-0.199
slof_relationship	2nd	43	24.87 ± 5.17	0.029	40	25.92 ± 5.12	-0.082	0.352	-0.310
satisfaction	1st	87	19.48 ± 7.10		87	21.18 ± 7.10		0.115	-0.485
satisfaction	2nd	43	20.21 ± 5.99	-0.208	40	22.74 ± 5.91	-0.445	0.054	-0.722
mhc_emotional	1st	87	10.47 ± 3.75		87	11.01 ± 3.75		0.344	-0.298
mhc_emotional	2nd	43	10.98 ± 3.15	-0.281	40	11.05 ± 3.11	-0.023	0.917	-0.040
mhc_social	1st	87	14.80 ± 5.79		87	15.16 ± 5.79		0.685	-0.108
mhc_social	2nd	43	15.79 ± 5.09	-0.297	40	15.72 ± 5.04	-0.170	0.955	0.019
mhc_psychological	1st	87	21.34 ± 6.64		87	21.89 ± 6.64		0.592	-0.149
mhc_psychological	2nd	43	22.46 ± 5.77	-0.306	40	22.55 ± 5.70	-0.182	0.943	-0.025
resilisnce	1st	87	15.72 ± 4.54		87	16.91 ± 4.54		0.087	-0.411
resilisnce	2nd	43	16.60 ± 4.12	-0.302	40	18.25 ± 4.09	-0.465	0.068	-0.573
social_provision	1st	87	13.14 ± 2.87		87	13.90 ± 2.87		0.082	-0.439
social_provision	2nd	43	12.79 ± 2.56	0.203	40	14.06 ± 2.54	-0.095	0.024	-0.738
els_value_living	1st	87	16.64 ± 3.19		87	17.21 ± 3.19		0.245	-0.324
els_value_living	2nd	43	16.87 ± 2.77	-0.132	40	17.82 ± 2.74	-0.351	0.119	-0.542
els_life_fulfill	1st	87	12.20 ± 3.27		87	13.16 ± 3.27		0.053	-0.590
els_life_fulfill	2nd	43	12.58 ± 2.77	-0.236	40	13.64 ± 2.74	-0.292	0.082	-0.646
els	1st	87	28.84 ± 5.95		87	30.37 ± 5.95		0.092	-0.544
els	2nd	43	29.47 ± 4.96	-0.226	40	31.38 ± 4.89	-0.360	0.080	-0.678
social_connect	1st	87	27.16 ± 9.32		87	26.10 ± 9.32		0.455	0.227
social_connect	2nd	43	27.11 ± 7.89	0.011	40	23.98 ± 7.79	0.456	0.070	0.672
shs_agency	1st	87	13.72 ± 5.06		87	14.80 ± 5.06		0.160	-0.438
shs_agency	2nd	43	14.11 ± 4.25	-0.156	40	15.63 ± 4.19	-0.336	0.102	-0.618
shs_pathway	1st	87	15.37 ± 4.08		87	16.48 ± 4.08		0.073	-0.536
shs_pathway	2nd	43	15.97 ± 3.47	-0.291	40	16.68 ± 3.43	-0.093	0.354	-0.338
shs	1st	87	29.09 ± 8.72		87	31.29 ± 8.72		0.099	-0.521
shs	2nd	43	30.07 ± 7.32	-0.232	40	32.29 ± 7.22	-0.237	0.166	-0.526
esteem	1st	87	12.62 ± 1.54		87	12.62 ± 1.54		1.000	0.000
esteem	2nd	43	12.50 ± 1.48	0.106	40	12.78 ± 1.47	-0.139	0.374	-0.245
mlq_search	1st	87	14.52 ± 3.50		87	15.23 ± 3.50		0.181	-0.319
mlq_search	2nd	43	15.30 ± 3.18	-0.351	40	15.21 ± 3.16	0.011	0.890	0.043
mlq_presence	1st	87	13.18 ± 4.33		87	13.47 ± 4.33		0.662	-0.115
mlq_presence	2nd	43	13.92 ± 3.82	-0.295	40	14.21 ± 3.78	-0.298	0.725	-0.118
mlq	1st	87	27.70 ± 7.03		87	28.70 ± 7.03		0.349	-0.240
mlq	2nd	43	29.22 ± 6.25	-0.364	40	29.44 ± 6.20	-0.178	0.870	-0.054
empower	1st	87	18.69 ± 4.29		87	19.55 ± 4.29		0.187	-0.371
empower	2nd	43	19.75 ± 3.72	-0.456	40	19.34 ± 3.68	0.090	0.616	0.175
ismi_resistance	1st	87	14.39 ± 2.51		87	14.40 ± 2.51		0.976	-0.007
ismi_resistance	2nd	43	14.50 ± 2.32	-0.064	40	15.10 ± 2.31	-0.408	0.243	-0.350
ismi_discrimation	1st	87	11.84 ± 3.09		87	11.48 ± 3.09		0.448	0.161
ismi_discrimation	2nd	43	11.78 ± 2.91	0.029	40	10.59 ± 2.90	0.403	0.065	0.535
sss_affective	1st	87	10.15 ± 3.64		87	10.30 ± 3.64		0.787	-0.081
sss_affective	2nd	43	10.18 ± 3.10	-0.019	40	9.11 ± 3.06	0.641	0.114	0.579
sss_behavior	1st	87	9.98 ± 3.72		87	9.82 ± 3.72		0.776	0.084
sss_behavior	2nd	43	9.78 ± 3.17	0.105	40	9.08 ± 3.13	0.388	0.312	0.367
sss_cognitive	1st	87	8.34 ± 3.65		87	8.51 ± 3.65		0.771	-0.079
sss_cognitive	2nd	43	8.31 ± 3.18	0.019	40	7.68 ± 3.15	0.408	0.366	0.310
sss	1st	87	28.47 ± 10.26		87	28.62 ± 10.26		0.924	-0.031
sss	2nd	43	28.21 ± 8.53	0.055	40	26.02 ± 8.40	0.543	0.242	0.457

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(232.75) = -0.38, p = 0.701, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)

2st

t(247.29) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.73)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(217.26) = -0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.68)

2st

t(247.23) = 0.96, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.72)

ras_confidence

1st

t(196.81) = 1.01, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.38)

2st

t(252.72) = 1.56, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.40 to 3.48)

ras_willingness

1st

t(205.45) = 0.38, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.72)

2st

t(250.15) = 1.14, p = 0.257, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.22)

ras_goal

1st

t(206.03) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.44)

2st

t(249.96) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.19 to 2.24)

ras_reliance

1st

t(202.18) = 1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.33)

2st

t(251.23) = 1.46, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.91)

ras_domination

1st

t(216.50) = -0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.35)

2st

t(247.35) = 1.62, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.73)

symptom

1st

t(189.47) = -0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.20 to 2.25)

2st

t(251.71) = -0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.77 to 2.65)

slof_work

1st

t(198.74) = -0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.82 to 1.01)

2st

t(252.28) = -0.27, p = 0.785, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.51)

slof_relationship

1st

t(203.65) = 0.76, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.43)

2st

t(250.75) = 0.93, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.17 to 3.28)

satisfaction

1st

t(194.09) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.82)

2st

t(253.00) = 1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.04 to 5.11)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(193.09) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.66)

2st

t(252.95) = 0.10, p = 0.917, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.43)

mhc_social

1st

t(202.40) = 0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.09)

2st

t(251.16) = -0.06, p = 0.955, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.25 to 2.13)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(199.55) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.53)

2st

t(252.05) = 0.07, p = 0.943, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.39 to 2.57)

resilisnce

1st

t(210.47) = 1.72, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.54)

2st

t(248.64) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.43)

social_provision

1st

t(206.24) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.62)

2st

t(249.90) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.17 to 2.38)

els_value_living

1st

t(199.53) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.52)

2st

t(252.06) = 1.56, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.13)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(194.69) = 1.95, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.94)

2st

t(252.98) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.25)

els

1st

t(191.99) = 1.69, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.31)

2st

t(252.77) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.23 to 4.04)

social_connect

1st

t(194.69) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.84 to 1.73)

2st

t(252.98) = -1.82, p = 0.070, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-6.52 to 0.26)

shs_agency

1st

t(193.48) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.59)

2st

t(252.98) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.35)

shs_pathway

1st

t(195.65) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.10 to 2.33)

2st

t(252.90) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.20)

shs

1st

t(193.04) = 1.66, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.41 to 4.80)

2st

t(252.95) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.93 to 5.36)

esteem

1st

t(229.67) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.46)

2st

t(246.93) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.93)

mlq_search

1st

t(210.80) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.76)

2st

t(248.55) = -0.14, p = 0.890, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.28)

mlq_presence

1st

t(203.00) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.58)

2st

t(250.96) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.94)

mlq

1st

t(205.01) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.10 to 3.10)

2st

t(250.30) = 0.16, p = 0.870, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.47 to 2.92)

empower

1st

t(199.00) = 1.32, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.15)

2st

t(252.21) = -0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.19)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(216.43) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.76)

2st

t(247.36) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.60)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(222.02) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.57)

2st

t(246.77) = -1.86, p = 0.065, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.44 to 0.07)

sss_affective

1st

t(195.60) = 0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.24)

2st

t(252.91) = -1.59, p = 0.114, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.41 to 0.26)

sss_behavior

1st

t(196.12) = -0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.95)

2st

t(252.84) = -1.01, p = 0.312, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.66)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(200.74) = 0.29, p = 0.771, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)

2st

t(251.69) = -0.90, p = 0.366, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.74)

sss

1st

t(191.41) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.92 to 3.22)

2st

t(252.62) = -1.17, p = 0.242, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.84 to 1.48)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(120.90) = 2.39, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.08 to 0.84)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(108.46) = 1.33, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.37)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(95.08) = 3.02, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.61 to 2.96)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(100.46) = 1.21, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.82)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(100.83) = 1.86, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.55)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(98.38) = 2.06, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.43)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(107.91) = 3.44, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.49 to 1.84)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(90.75) = -1.83, p = 0.140, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.37 to 0.13)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(96.25) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.20)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(99.31) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.72)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(93.46) = 2.05, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.05 to 3.07)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(92.86) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.82)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(98.52) = 0.80, p = 0.857, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.97)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(96.75) = 0.85, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.21)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(103.75) = 2.19, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.55)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(100.96) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.89)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(96.74) = 1.63, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.35)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(93.81) = 1.35, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.18)

els

1st vs 2st

t(92.21) = 1.66, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.22)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(93.81) = -2.11, p = 0.075, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-4.13 to -0.12)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(93.10) = 1.55, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.89)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(94.39) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.08)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(92.83) = 1.09, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.82)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(118.16) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.65)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(103.97) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.91)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(98.90) = 1.39, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.80)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(100.18) = 0.83, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.51)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(96.41) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.78)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(107.86) = 1.94, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.40)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(111.97) = -1.93, p = 0.112, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.02)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(94.36) = -2.96, p = 0.008, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-1.98 to -0.39)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(94.67) = -1.79, p = 0.152, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.08)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(97.48) = -1.90, p = 0.120, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.04)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(91.87) = -2.50, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.66 to -0.53)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(117.84) = 0.80, p = 0.845, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.52)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(106.43) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.60)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(94.10) = 1.84, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.08 to 2.19)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(99.07) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.47)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(99.41) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.99)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(97.15) = 1.10, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.05)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(105.93) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.68)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(90.08) = -1.80, p = 0.151, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.22 to 0.16)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(95.18) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.01)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(98.00) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.30)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(92.60) = 0.99, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.19)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(92.04) = 1.34, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(97.28) = 1.43, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.34)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(95.64) = 1.47, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.61)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(102.10) = 1.47, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.04)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(99.53) = -0.98, p = 0.655, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(95.63) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.95)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(92.92) = 1.13, p = 0.522, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.07)

els

1st vs 2st

t(91.45) = 1.08, p = 0.568, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.81)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(92.92) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.99 to 1.88)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(92.26) = 0.75, p = 0.914, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.41)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(93.46) = 1.39, p = 0.335, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.47)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(92.02) = 1.11, p = 0.541, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.73)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(115.33) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.34)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(102.30) = 1.71, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.69)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(97.62) = 1.43, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.76)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(98.81) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.22)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(95.33) = 2.19, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.02)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(105.88) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.80)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(109.66) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.82)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(93.43) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.80)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(93.72) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.59)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(96.32) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.80)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(91.13) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.26 to 1.73)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance